My Blog

Well, the 2010 Primary Elections have come and gone in my home state of Oklahoma. I realize this blog entry will probably only interest the folks of the Sooner State, so my apologies to everyone else. But, here are my thoughts on what happened this week at the polls.

 The Race for the Governor's Mansion

First of all, I'll cover the Democrats. Man, what a shock that Jerri Askins won! Going into Election Day, her opponent, current State Attorney General Drew Edmondson, had a 10 point lead, according to some polls. But, on election night, Askins pulled an upset. This is good and bad. It's good because just in case (and I don't think this will happen) the Dems win this post in November, Askins isn't quite as liberal as Edmondson (he seems very at home with the Moveon.org crowd). So, if we had to endure another Democrat for governor, we could do worse. That being said, she's still a dang dirty Democrat and I'm hoping she does not win the general election! It's bad because she is more moderate, so she might be tougher to beat. Oklahoma is a fairly conservative state (remember, we're the only state where Obama didn't carry any districts). However, when it comes to local elections, many seem to love their moderate Dems. Edmondson would have been portrayed as a far left liberal (which he is) and it would have hurt him with voters. But Askins is more to the center, so she might pull in some of the folks in the rural areas who are economically more Democrat, but socially more Republican.

Now on to the Republicans. It's no shock, for those of us who followed this race that Mary Fallin won against primary challenger Randy Brogdon. I like Brogdon and what he stands for. I think his views are very much in line with the Tea Party movement that I am a part of. Fallin is more of an "establishment Republican," and yes, she voted for the first so-called "bail out." I disagreed with her on that vote. But, Brogdon made a few major slip ups. First of all, he ran a fairly negative campaign. He frequently pointed out the mistakes Ms. Fallin has made as a U.S. Representative. However, you can't win an election by only being negative. Plus, in his negative tone, he was very clear about all of the things he is against (high taxes, increased government regulation, bail outs, etc.) but never clearly articulated what he is for! He told us what he wanted to do at times (like eliminate the state income tax) but never explained how he was going to accomplish such things. Voters want to see a clear plan laid out. Brogdon tapped into the anger many of us are feeling right now, but never rose above that to provide a positive alternative.

I think Mary Fallin will be the next governor of Oklahoma. There is such a backlash right now against Obama and all of the Democrats that Ms. Fallin would have to do something unforgivable to not pull off a victory (or hire Steve Largent or Earnest Istook as campaign managers, which I don't recommend).

5^th Congressional Race

This race had an upset, as well. James Lankford, a political newcomer, actually won the largest percentage of the vote (I think there were five guys in this race) and will face Kevin Calvey in a run-off. James won for several reasons, in my opinion. First of all, he used to manage the popular Southern Baptist camp Falls Creek. He's very well known and well liked among the Southern Baptists of the state, and in Oklahoma, that's one big voting bloc (it seems as if we have a SBC church on just about every other corner). Secondly, he's never run for office before. His two closest opponents in the race had both been members of the state congress. This is definitely an anti-incumbent election cycle for many, and the fact that Lankford is a fresh face in the arena worked to his advantage.

I think Lankford will probably pull off a victory, and I look for him to end up serving Oklahoma's 5^th congressional district. I think he'll do alright, too. He probably won't be much different from Mary Fallin who has held the seat for the last few years, or Earnest Istook, who held the seat before her. He may be a newcomer to politics, but policy wise, not much will change.

 4^th Congressional Race

This is the race I was most interested in, as the 4^th is my district. I voted for RJ Harris, as I wanted him to defeat Tom Cole. Quite frankly, Cole is a bipolar conservative. He's rock solid one day, voting the right way, and then flakey the next day, voting for bail outs and all sorts of bad legislation. I think Oklahoma needs consistent conservatism, and Cole just doesn't offer that. I think several things hurt RJ Harris, though. First of all, he did go negative, and for some reasons politicians can't seem to understand that negative usually doesn't work! Secondly, Cole has a fairly long history in that seat, and is very well known. He's popular with the mainstream Republicans in the area. Harris is more of a libertarian, which is alright by me! But, Oklahoma has a pretty cozy relationship with its establishment Republicans, and "Ron Paulish" candidates just don't fare well (I hope this changes). I knew that Harris really didn't have a shot, but I sure wanted him to win. If Cole doesn't get any better, and no one else steps up, I might seriously consider challenging him in 2012. Just a thought in the back of my mind...

Well, in a nutshell, there are my feelings on the primary. Now we move on to the general election, as I pray conservatives trounce all over liberals this election cycle. My big hope is that Republicans will actually offer a clear, conservative alternative to the socialistic Democrats. It's time to step up to the plate, and not to play softball, either.

I laugh anytime I hear people ask the question, "Is Jesus a Republican or a Democrat." I have a feeling if we'd ask Him that question He'd respond, "I'm neither. I'm God." But still, politicians on the Left and the Right tend to evoke His name often, trying to show that their position is right. After all, their idea is what Jesus would suggest. The action they want to take is the exact same thing the Lord would do. Even Nancy Pelosi has been mentioning Jesus a lot recently! So, where does Jesus stand on the issues?

Since Jesus isn't physically here on Earth to ask Him about His stand on issues, we have to look elsewhere. God speaks to us from His Word, the Bible. Sometimes, certain issues aren't addressed, so we have to "read between the lines" and discern over all principles taught in Scripture. But, we also need to be honest. The Bible doesn't say anything about topics such as capital gains taxes, the inheritance tax, "cap and trade" legislation, global warming, off-shore drilling, and a whole host of other topics considered important in today's political climate.

Let's look at the issue of taxes for a moment. Truth is Jesus didn't really talk much about them. In fact, the only reference I can think of is when He told the Disciples, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's..." In other words, pay your taxes. This verse, which is often quoted, is found in Matthew 22:21. I've heard liberals quote this verse in opposition to the "Tea Party" movement, and those who protest high taxes. But let's examine this verse a bit closer. First of all, this teaching Jesus is giving wasn't focused on taxes. That being said, He did tell the Disciples to pay their taxes. That's sound advice (as all of His is). Even if taxes are high, is it a sin for a Christian not to pay them? You bet! We are to obey authority (to an extent, more on that in a bit). Christ commands this. But, does this verse mean we can't protest or try to change things? Absolutely not! No where does this verse imply that. You don't have to like taxes, and you can even try to change them. But, until the taxes are changed, pay them. This verse doesn't rule out protest, but it does rule out tax evasion.

Let's move on to gun ownership. I'm a Christian. I'm also a gun owner. I have no problems owning a fire arm and my conscience is guilt free on the issue. In Matthew 26 and John 18, we have recorded the events of Jesus' arrest. His trusted disciple Peter draws a sword and cuts the ear off of one of the guards there to apprehend Jesus. This is telling for several reasons. First of all, as He knows everything, Jesus knew Peter had the sword. This would be the equivalent today of Peter carrying a gun. And Peter's act of violence received a rebuke from Jesus, but not the fact that he had the weapon. Jesus told him to "put it away" or "put it back in its place." In other words, Jesus condemned the way Peter used the sword, not the existence of the sword. Jesus told him that those who "draw the sword, die by the sword." (Some translations: "live by the sword, die by the sword.) The eternal truth is taught that violence begets more violence. We've seen this played out repeatedly: those who live violent lives usually die in a horrible, bloody way. Senseless violence is condemned in Scripture! But, Jesus didn't seem to have a problem with the fact that Peter had the sword. In fact, Peter may have had it because Jesus told him to! Listen to the Lord's words in Luke 22:36, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." This verse seems to be rarely preached on. In fact, I don't often hear anyone on either side of the political spectrum, mention this one. For many people, it's troubling. The verse seems to go against the pacifist teachings of Jesus. In fact, this verse seems to contradict other teachings the Lord gave the Disciples. Elsewhere He told them not even to take money when out preaching the Gospel, and just rely on the hospitality of those in the towns who might welcome them. Several things need to be pointed out. First of all, Jesus never taught complete pacifism. Jesus did teach that it's wrong to go out and start fights, so to speak. A lifestyle and culture of violence was preached against by the Lord. However, when we look at the Bible as a whole (the words that aren't in red are just as important as the ones that are-the Book is all God's Word, not just the Gospels) we see that some battles have to, and even need to, be fought. Secondly, when Christ told the Disciples earlier not to take money and other possessions when preaching from town to town, that was not a "forever" commandment. In other words, it was what He wanted on that specific missionary endeavor. But, when He tells them to take their purse and a sword, He knows what is coming. He knows that the climate is changing and after His death and resurrection Christians are going to have a hard time, to say the least. In this passage of Luke, He's basically saying, "Use common sense and protect yourselves." These are wise words for us today. Look at what is going on and have discernment. Be prepared.  Some have said, "oh, Jesus didn't mean a literal sword here." Really? His Disciples respond by saying, "Hey, look, we've got two of ‘em!" Jesus says, "That's enough." More evidence that Jesus knew some Disciples we're prone to carrying weapons. Is Jesus opposed to us owning guns? I don't think He is. He certainly wasn't opposed to such two thousand years ago. Is He opposed to us using them wrongly, for unnecessary violence? Oh  yeah! That's a no brainer.

Often times, Jesus is used by some in government to justify social programs that take care of the poor and needy. In fact, there are too many verses to mention in this space about Christ's views on taking care of the needy, poor, sick, disadvantaged, and the oppressed. The Apostles carried on His teaching and put it into action in the early Church. It was, and should forever be, central to Christianity. However, it is important to note, Christ commands His children, or the Church, to take care of the poor! Nowhere does Jesus even bring the government into it. His Church, not the government, is the extension of God's Kingdom on Earth! And, I must say, for the most part we've dropped the ball! However, Jesus' words should not be used to justify high (or low, for that matter) taxes that go towards various social programs. They should be used to convict us, as Christians, to care for those among us who are hurting.

What about government dissention? Is it wrong for us to protest our government officials? I don't think so. Jesus didn't really protest the government. But, it should be pointed out, that wasn't His mission! He came to sacrifice Himself in order to reconcile sinful human beings to a holy God. His Disciples and others wanted Him to "get into politics" and topple the Roman government which oppressed them. He had to tell them that's wasn't why He came. At that time He came to set up a spiritual kingdom, not an earthly one. (It could be pointed out that Jesus had some not-so-flattering things to say about Herod, and there seems to be some times Jesus might have used sarcasm against those in authority-which they didn't seem to quite get.) However, John the Baptist, whom Jesus essentially called the "greatest man" ever to live (Luke 7:28) did speak out against a powerful government official, and it got him killed! And, on several occasions, the Apostles are told by government officials, after the Resurrection, to stop proclaiming the Gospel. They respond by stepping up their evangelistic efforts. These examples, and others, are used to explain that through-out the history of the Church, Christians obeyed the laws made by man as long as they did not violate God's law. When the two conflict, God wins. Jesus never taught to blindly follow the government, no matter what they say or do.

There are many subjects we could look at right now and try to guess where Jesus stands on them. The truth is that Jesus wasn't very political here on Earth. He had a much more important mission, and was above all that. He still is. Let's not reduce Him down to being a Republican or a Democrat. If you're on the Left, don't portray Jesus as some hippy who preached a "social gospel" and never condemned anyone or anything. And if you're on the Right, don't portray Jesus as a guy who looked like Mitt Romney and cared more about passing a federal marriage amendment than saving souls. Neither portrayal is accurate, but both cheapen the Gospel. Say you Christians on the Left succeed in enacting all of your social programs. Great, you'll have people who were raised in an expansive public school system, who always had government groceries, and secure mortgages who die and spend eternity separated from God because you reduced Jesus down to a pansy and never preached the truth of the Gospel. Say you Christians on the Right succeed in your conservative social agenda. Then you'll have people who "acted right" on Earth, couldn't marry someone of the same sex or view pornography, who die and go to hell. They may have lived "morally" but they weren't born again. We all need to realize that laws, whether they are left leaning or right leaning, do not save anyone and legislation cannot change a person's heart. Only the Holy Spirit can and does! And people open up to Him after hearing the true Gospel preached and proclaimed (Romans 10:14). In short, let's not reduce Christ down to politics. He's so much more!